theft/robbery structure

intro

D may be guilty of theft/robbery under the Theft Act 1968. s.1 states: "a person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention to permanently deprive the other of it".

actus reus theft - appropriation

s.3(1) defines appropriation as "any assumption by a person of the rights of an owner". [GIVE RELEVANT CASE TO SCENARIO HERE]. Appropriation does not require the absence of consent (Lawrence/Gomez). Appropriation could take place even when there is a voluntary gift (Hinks). There could be appropriation even if D leaves empty handed (Corocran). Here, there is appropriation by D because [LINK TO SCENARIO]. This shows D has assumed the rights of the owner, V.

actus reus theft - property

Under s.4 "property includes money and all other property, real or personal, including things in action and other intangible property". Real property includes land and things growing on it; personal property includes tangible items such as goods; things in action include rights enforced by legal action; intangible property includes items such as electronic credits (Marshall). [STATE WHAT D HAS TAKEN IS {X TYPE} PROPERTY AND USE RELEVANT CASE FOR IT].

actus reus theft - belonging to another

Belonging to another is defined in s.5(1) "property sha;; be regarded as belonging to any person having possession or control of it or having it in any proprietary right or interest". Sometimes people can acquire a proprietary interest over another persons property (Turner). s.5(3) states that where property has been given to the defendant to be dealt with in a particular way and that is not done, there can be theft. s.5(4) states that "if D received property by mistake and fails to return this to the rightful owner, this could amount to theft". Abandoned property may still be deemed to belong to another (Rostron/Woodman). [STATE WHOM HAS POSSESSION/CONTROL OF PROPERTY AND HOW THEY HAD IT].

actus reus of robbery - force

s.8(1) states "a person is guilty of robbery if he seals, and immediately before or at the time of doing so, he uses force on any person or puts or seeks to put any person in fear of being then and there subjected to force." Therefore, as well as the appropriation of property belonging to another, force must have been applied immediately before stealing or at the time of doing so and in order to steal. This includes the defendant threatening to use force (Lockley). The person who force is applied to or who is threatened with the use of force does not have to be the person from who the theft occurs. Here, there was [LINK TO SCENARIO IF D USED OR THREATENED FORCE AND IF IT WAS APPLIED AT THE TIME OR IMMEDIATELY BEFORE IT]

mens rea theft - dishonesty

The mens rea of theft requires two elements to be proven: 1. the defendant was dishonest; and 2. the defendant must have an intention to permanently deprive the owner of the property. The Theft Act 1968 does not define the word "dishonestly". In Ivey v Genting Casinos 2017, the supreme court outlined an objective test for dishonesty: 1. has the defendant been dishonest by the ordinary srandards of reasonable and honest people? There is some guidance in s.2(1) as to what would not be considered dishonest: s.2(1)(a) - believes a right in law, s.2(1)(b) - believes the other consented, s.2(1)(c) believes person cannot be discovered. [APPLY TO SCENARIO, IS D'S ACTIONS DISHONEST AND WHY? IF REASONABLE AND HONEST PERSON BELIEVES D HAD RIGHT TO PROPERTY?, DOES D FIT ANY OF THE EXCEPTIONS TO DISHONESTY?]

mens rea theft - intention to permanently deprive

s.6(1) defines an intention to permanently deprive. "A person...is...to be regarded as having the intention of permanently depriving the other of it if his intention is to treat the thing as his own to dispose of..." (Velumeyl/Lavender). This looks at whether it was D's main aim or purpose to permanently deprive the other (Mohan). I believe it was D's main aim to permanently deprive the victim of [PROPERTY NAME] because [LINK TO SCENARIO]. This shows D intended to treat the property as his own.

mens rea robbery - intent to use/threat force

It must also be proved there is intention to use or threat of force in order to steal. This considers whether it was D's main aim or purpose to use force in order to steal or whether it was D's main aim or purpose to threaten to use force in order to steal (Mohan). Here, [LINK TO SCENARIO BRO].

conclusion

D has the AR and MR of theft/robbery/boaf and if convicted would be given up to 7 years/life imprisonment.